As this is a householder application, in the event of an appeal against a refusal of planning permission, which is to be dealt with on the basis of written representations, any representations made about this application will be sent to the Secretary of State, and there will be no further opportunity to comment at appeal stage.
The application is available for inspection online and at the offices of Planning Services, Development Management, Seafield House, Kirkleatham Street, Redcar, TS10 1SP. The offices are open from 8.30am to 5.00pm Monday to Thursday and 8.30am to 4.30pm on Friday.
Please note that all comments received in respect of planning applications will become background papers (as defined in the Access to Information Act 1985) and accordingly will be available for public inspection. You should be aware that by making a representation you are consenting to your name and address being included in the planning file, which is open to public inspection. Full details of our Privacy Notice regarding how we collect and use personal information, is available on the Council’s website.
| # | Condition Details |
|---|---|
| 1 | (1) The development shall not be begun later than the expiration of FIVE YEARS from the date of this permission. REASON: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. |
| 2 | NOTE: Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan Policies GEN1, GEN2 and H10 were relevant to this decision. |
| 3 | REASON FOR DECISION: The main consideration with regard to this proposal is the likely effect a forward extension may have on the amenity of 10 Fairmead. The application site is a detached house at the end of a hammer head cul-de-sac which is set forward of 10 Fairmead with a drive width separating the two properties. A car port structure has been erected in the gap with a 1.8m high close boarded fence erected from the front corner of number 10 projecting as far as the front of 12 Fairmead. The whole of the front of 10 Fairmead has been extended forward at ground floor level approximately 2m and therefore the effect of this proposal equates with the original situation in relation to the house positions when first built. Consequently I do not consider that there would be any further loss of amenity resulting from this proposal particularly given the previous history and the existence of the high fence on the boundary. |
| Address | Date Sent | Date Reconsulted | Expiry Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| MISS C JACKSON 10 FAIRMEAD REDCAR TS104QE | 08/01/2004 | - | 29/01/2004 |
| 11 FAIRMEAD REDCAR TS104QE | 08/01/2004 | - | 29/01/2004 |
| 15 FAIRMEAD REDCAR TS104QE | 08/01/2004 | - | 29/01/2004 |
| 11 GREENCROFT REDCAR TS104QF | 08/01/2004 | - | 29/01/2004 |
| 9 GREENCROFT REDCAR TS104QF | 08/01/2004 | - | 29/01/2004 |